Is more RAM always better?

[Fern]

PC3200 bumps back to PC2700 speed when you populate all three slots on an Abit NF7-S.

Hmmm... Are you sure SickBeast? Earlier this year I was testing with 1 gig of ram running in win98se (which by-the-way, contrary to Conventional Wisdom did not cause errors etc.). I was using 2 x 256MB and 1 x 512MB in my rig below. I was running the mem bench in Sandra with my mobile @ 3200speeds (200FSB x 11 multi) I really don't believe it kicked my ram back to PC2700. I would've been out of synch too.

Since the past year (especially after Far Cry lots of peeps withthe NF2 mobo's are running three sticks 2 x 256MB and 1 x 512MB) and I haven't heard them complain of having to run @ 166FSB?

Fern

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: V00D00
Memory only runs at full speed when you have all the slots on your board populated to their maximum. At least that's what I was told.

Not True, If you are running DDR400 and all four banks are filled; The speed of the Ram will be reduced to DDR333 on many nForce Based motherboards (but there are always exceptions[BIOS]).
Keep each memory channel loaded with the Fewest number of
DIMM's of the highest possible capacity for the best performance level.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Googer
SIMM's were 16bit's each it took Two of them to make a 32bit data path, that was untill Synchronous ram apearead on the market and a single DIMM was 32bits wide It put a temporary end to having to buy memory in pairs. I remember that.

Uhm... well, it's a good thing that I do, because you don't, at least not completely 😛
SIMMs either had an 8/9-bit wide data-bus (30-pin SIMMs), or a 32/36-bit wide data-bus (72-pin SIMMs). There were no 16-bit SIMMs, at least not for PCs. (I have seen some wierd 60-pin SIMMs for printers though, they are longer than 30-pin but shorter than 72-pin.) PC-style SDRAM is normally 64/72-bit wide, on 168-pin DIMMs. (And slightly smaller 144-pin SO-DIMMs for laptops.) FYI.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
No that's not true. In fact, when you have all the slots populated, quite often you will be forced to run your memory at speeds slower than what it is rated for. For example, PC3200 bumps back to PC2700 speed when you populate all three slots on an Abit NF7-S. Stability is also a huge concern when you fill all your memory slots. It's always best to get fewer sticks with larger capacities, unless dual-channel will give you a large boost (P4).

Generally correct. It's all about the capacitive loading of the memory signal lines. More load = slower signal switching time = delay which must be compensated for to avoid errors. That either means dropping down the clock speeds, or increasing the latencies of some of the signals (CAS 2.5 to 3.0, command 1T to 2T, etc.) You can offset that slightly by upping the voltage, higher voltage = faster signal-switching timing for the same level of capacitance.

My MSI KT4V-L was made before the official DDR400 spec was finalised, so the support for DDR400 is limited, and officially it only works with a single DIMM, of certain approved brands. But since the mobo chipset won't support above 166Mhz FSB anyways, due to PCI/AGP freq./divisor limitations, DDR400 support doesn't really matter. I'm running with all 3 slots filled, with single-sided PC2700 memory, with the slowest timings on everything just to be safe. (I set the fastest timings, and ran Memtest86, and it seemed to pass, but then I had some wierd errors in Windows, so I figured better safe than sorry with my data.) This board is known to have some stability problems with all 3 DIMM slots filled.

So filling all slots = more loading, slower signal timing, but at the same time, for advanced chipsets, it also can mean that it can use more advanced dual-channel or interleaving settings too. So it's kind of a trade-off.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Googer
SIMM's were 16bit's each it took Two of them to make a 32bit data path, that was untill Synchronous ram apearead on the market and a single DIMM was 32bits wide It put a temporary end to having to buy memory in pairs. I remember that.

Uhm... well, it's a good thing that I do, because you don't, at least not completely 😛
SIMMs either had an 8/9-bit wide data-bus (30-pin SIMMs), or a 32/36-bit wide data-bus (72-pin SIMMs). There were no 16-bit SIMMs, at least not for PCs. (I have seen some wierd 60-pin SIMMs for printers though, they are longer than 30-pin but shorter than 72-pin.) PC-style SDRAM is normally 64/72-bit wide, on 168-pin DIMMs. (And slightly smaller 144-pin SO-DIMMs for laptops.) FYI.

Thanks for the correction. the extra bit if i can remeber correctly was for pairity. (8 or 9 bits long)

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Fern

PC3200 bumps back to PC2700 speed when you populate all three slots on an Abit NF7-S.

Hmmm... Are you sure SickBeast? Earlier this year I was testing with 1 gig of ram running in win98se (which by-the-way, contrary to Conventional Wisdom did not cause errors etc.). I was using 2 x 256MB and 1 x 512MB in my rig below. I was running the mem bench in Sandra with my mobile @ 3200speeds (200FSB x 11 multi) I really don't believe it kicked my ram back to PC2700. I would've been out of synch too.

Since the past year (especially after Far Cry lots of peeps withthe NF2 mobo's are running three sticks 2 x 256MB and 1 x 512MB) and I haven't heard them complain of having to run @ 166FSB?

Fern

If you read the NF7-S manual it says that PC2700 is the fastest memory speed w/ all 3 memory slots filled. I tried to add an old 512mb stick of PC2700 to my 2 sticks of 512mb PC3200 and my system was completely unstable at PC2700 speeds. This was with the slowest possible memory timings, and maximum memory voltage. I'm apprehensive to even attempt to add more memory to my system given the stability concerns and the fact that I'm using no-name memory. =/

 

[Googer]

You can install more memory than an os will support. The proper amount will apear in the BIOS, but The OS will fail to reconise it. Fern is correct to say tha Win98 or 95 wont crash when more memory is added than what it has been designed to support. I have done this before.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Fern

PC3200 bumps back to PC2700 speed when you populate all three slots on an Abit NF7-S.

Hmmm... Are you sure SickBeast? Earlier this year I was testing with 1 gig of ram running in win98se (which by-the-way, contrary to Conventional Wisdom did not cause errors etc.). I was using 2 x 256MB and 1 x 512MB in my rig below. I was running the mem bench in Sandra with my mobile @ 3200speeds (200FSB x 11 multi) I really don't believe it kicked my ram back to PC2700. I would've been out of synch too.

Since the past year (especially after Far Cry lots of peeps withthe NF2 mobo's are running three sticks 2 x 256MB and 1 x 512MB) and I haven't heard them complain of having to run @ 166FSB?

Fern

If you read the NF7-S manual it says that PC2700 is the fastest memory speed w/ all 3 memory slots filled. I tried to add an old 512mb stick of PC2700 to my 2 sticks of 512mb PC3200 and my system was completely unstable at PC2700 speeds. This was with the slowest possible memory timings, and maximum memory voltage. I'm apprehensive to even attempt to add more memory to my system given the stability concerns and the fact that I'm using no-name memory. =/

Damn! I'll try to get hold of a 512MB stick to test. But if this is right, it blows my modest upgrade path. I've been planning to get a 512MB stick similar to my two 256MB sticks so I can use 1gig for newer games.

Oh well, at least I haven't blown the dough yet. Sounds like I need to dump the two 256MB sticks and get two 512MB sticks.

Thanks SB

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Fern
Thanks SB

You're welcome. :beer:

Good luck; it may in fact work for you. I was using a combination of Infineon and Hynix unbranded 512mb sticks. I didn't try various slot/stick combinations or troubleshoot too thoroughly.

RAM is dirt cheap these days...it's a nice time to be upgrading. 🙂

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Googer
You can install more memory than an os will support. The proper amount will apear in the BIOS, but The OS will fail to reconise it. Fern is correct to say tha Win98 or 95 wont crash when more memory is added than what it has been designed to support. I have done this before.

Wrong again. 🙂

Windows wont "fail to recognize it" it will just not allocate all of it properly. It knows its there but doesn't know what to do with it. That is what 64bit OS and Processors will solve.

-Kevin

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Googer
You can install more memory than an os will support. The proper amount will apear in the BIOS, but The OS will fail to reconise it. Fern is correct to say tha Win98 or 95 wont crash when more memory is added than what it has been designed to support. I have done this before.

Wrong again. 🙂

Windows wont "fail to recognize it" it will just not allocate all of it properly. It knows its there but doesn't know what to do with it. That is what 64bit OS and Processors will solve.

-Kevin

Chech your facts Kevin a little more often,

Not 100% True if windows 98 can only manage 512mb and windows nt/2000 will take a maximum of Four GIGABYTES. Both operating systems are 32bit. The reason Windows 9x can only manage 512mb is unrealted to hardware.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Actually it is true. Yes software has something to do with it but Windows 98 based OS's can be modified to correctly allocate 1gb of RAM.

However HW limitations prevent >4gig as well as Software limitations (until 64bit).

-Kevin

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Actually it is true. Yes software has something to do with it but Windows 98 based OS's can be modified to correctly allocate 1gb of RAM.

However HW limitations prevent >4gig as well as Software limitations (until 64bit).

-Kevin

Corect, Hardware is a limiting factor here, but if you have more than 512mb of ram, Windows 9x will not be able to operate a dos prompt and can crash. Even if you hack it.

 

[jvarszegi]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Actually it is true. Yes software has something to do with it but Windows 98 based OS's can be modified to correctly allocate 1gb of RAM.

However HW limitations prevent >4gig as well as Software limitations (until 64bit).

-Kevin

No, that's not true. One way to enable greater amounts of RAM is for the operating system to have an extended addressing system. Microsoft's Address Windowing Extensions (AWE) is such a scheme.

 

[Googer]

Kevin is always trying to correct every one.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Fern
Thanks SB

You're welcome. :beer:

Good luck; it may in fact work for you. I was using a combination of Infineon and Hynix unbranded 512mb sticks. I didn't try various slot/stick combinations or troubleshoot too thoroughly.

RAM is dirt cheap these days...it's a nice time to be upgrading. 🙂

I'm noticing peeps over at nForceHQ showing in their sigs rigs with 3 sticks and FSB well above 200. So I'm wondering if that blurb in the manual just means that FSB 200 isn't *officially* supported.

I've got a server here with a stick of PC 3200 Corsair VS. I'll pull it and put it into my rig over the Holidays and see if it kicks back to PC2700. When I had it in their b4 running the Sandra benchie I was basically trying to see if Win98se (which I had on here at that time) was gonna crap out with 1 gig. So my fear was that if it kicked back to pc2700 I may not have noticed. This time I look for that.

Enjoy the holidays Everybody (and Peace to Googer and Kevin 🙂)

Fern

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Googer
Kevin is always trying to correct every one.

Hmmm, you try to hide the fact that you are wrong to everyone.

Third yes i was right. You simply restated what i had said in more complex terms. Extending the Adressing System would mean you are modifying the OS.

Googer i have a phrase in my thread i think you should read (DAPUNISHER said it). So why dont you stop because im finished.

-Kevin

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Googer
but if you have more than 512mb of ram, Windows 9x will not be able to operate a dos prompt and can crash. Even if you hack it.

That is most certainly not true. Well, I guess it depends on whether you mean "can" or "will" crash. Win9x "can" crash, almost no matter what. 😛 But as long as you limit the physical memory that win9x can use, such that it won't trigger some of the documented bugs with greater-than-512MB of RAM, then it should operate "fine", or at least as well as it normally does. I haven't seen any issues with opening a DOS box.

I've seen differing views on whether the limit is really 512MB or 1GB, as MS documents two different limits in two different KB articles, one describing MaxPhysMem tweaks, the other describing VCACHE tweaks. I put both in, just to be safe, I have 768MB installed in this box now.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Googer
but if you have more than 512mb of ram, Windows 9x will not be able to operate a dos prompt and can crash. Even if you hack it.

That is most certainly not true. Well, I guess it depends on whether you mean "can" or "will" crash. Win9x "can" crash, almost no matter what. 😛 But as long as you limit the physical memory that win9x can use, such that it won't trigger some of the documented bugs with greater-than-512MB of RAM, then it should operate "fine", or at least as well as it normally does. I haven't seen any issues with opening a DOS box.

I've seen differing views on whether the limit is really 512MB or 1GB, as MS documents two different limits in two different KB articles, one describing MaxPhysMem tweaks, the other describing VCACHE tweaks. I put both in, just to be safe, I have 768MB installed in this box now.

"Exactly, That depends on your defintion of the word 'is', is" -Bill Clinton.

 

[Googer]

If a computer that is running any of the versions of Windows 9.x above contains more than 512 megabytes (for example, 768
megabytes) of physical memory (RAM), you may experience one or more of
the following symptoms:
You may be unable to open an MS-DOS session (or command prompt) while
Windows is running. Attempts to do so may generate the following error
message:
There is not enough memory available to run this program.
Quit one or more programs, and then try again.
The computer may stop responding (hang) while Windows is starting, or
halt and display the following error message:

Insufficient memory to initialize windows. Quit one or more
memory-resident programs or remove unnecessary utilities from your
Config.sys and Autoexec.bat files, and restart your computer.
CAUSE
The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the
maximum cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when
Windows starts. Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit
it to access a cache of the maximum size so that it can increase the
cache to that size if needed. These addresses are allocated in a range
of virtual addresses from 0xC0000000 through 0xFFFFFFFF (3 to 4
gigabytes) known as the system arena.

On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be
large enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system
arena, leaving no virtual memory addresses available for other
functions such as opening an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual
machine).

 

[Googer]

Kevin, you have proven nothing at all and have shown your true inner child to the rest of the world. Well, in that case maybe you have proven someting after all.

 

[Insomniak]

Translation from Japanese:

For happy lucky best result, get as much fastest RAM as budget allows. Do no place the RAM in the dishwasher safe. Warrantied for 1.5 year or 3 centipedes, whichever comes first.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Translation from Japanese:

For happy lucky best result, get as much fastest RAM as budget allows. Do no place the RAM in the dishwasher safe. Warrantied for 1.5 year or 3 centipedes, whichever comes first.

Ha! Sound more like a Chineese translation.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Googer
Kevin, you have proven nothing at all and have shown your true inner child to the rest of the world. Well, in that case maybe you have proven someting after all.

All these years on-line and you guys haven't figured out yet that when you feed a troll it grows? -DAPUNISHER

I know as well as everyone else does who is right. So therefore thats all i have to say.

-Kevin

 

[jvarszegi]

this thread should be locked.